The Most Dangerous Game

[Anticrombie0909]

If anybody has read this short story, forgive me to lay out the cliff's notes version for those who havn't. A general on an island (forget the name) captures a shipwrecked man (again, sorry, no name) and tells him that he is a great hunter. But the problem is that he has run out of prey, and is bored with hunting just animals. When he discovered the joys of hunting humans. The General tells the man that if he can survive for three days on pure wits and a head start, he will let him go. Otherwise, the General will kill him.

So- is it hunting...or murder?

[makaveli121212]

why does it have to be either, i think its both...end of discussion

[Anticrombie0909]

why does it have to be either, i think its both...end of discussion

Dude, this is critical thinking. Time for thinking critically. Not just saying 'oh its both, lets not talk about it'. You're supposed to talk about it.

I'll give my views in a moment. I want to see what other people think before I add my bias.

[BluE_MeaniE]

I do think it is both, actually.
It's not legally either of those things, but I assume that the island is far away from anywhere, but killing somebody is usually murder, and he was participating in the act of hunting.

[Anonymous]

1) its hunting because he is hunting, so its a man, who says a man cant be hunted...ever heard the term man-hunter
2) its murder, hes killing a man in cold blood, i think hunting any animal is murder
3) how is this critical thinking at all, if i want to kill you, i hunt you down and then kill you...murder+hunting
4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

[makaveli121212]

1) its hunting because he is hunting, so its a man, who says a man cant be hunted...ever heard the term man-hunter
2) its murder, hes killing a man in cold blood, i think hunting any animal is murder
3) how is this critical thinking at all, if i want to kill you, i hunt you down and then kill you...murder+hunting
4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

me

[dancingmaniac3]

...time for me to think critically....i honestly think its hunting, because, he is actually giving the prey (human) a head start and a warning. when u murder someone, u dont give them a headstart do you? and did they ever say if he killed that person? cause if he didnt even kill him, then its hunting. only if he killed him without warning or something it is murder...and if he hunted him and then killed him, its hunting. but based on the laws of our society, it would be murder, if he did it and was reported. if the hunter was on the same asland as the prey, and they were the only two, and he kills the prey, theres no one around to say it was murder. so for the hunter, its hunting. in conclusion...ITS HUNTING.

[chardish]

I've actually read the story, and I think the way it ends is really cool. Yay hunted man.

Let's not look at this from a legal perspective, since the laws of the land are not always right.

I think it's more of a sick perversion than anything else. To derive pleasure from killing humans is disgusting. Period. Such a person should be locked up with the key thrown away.

[dancingmaniac3]

BUT...it wouldnt be considered murder or anything...and how would he be locked up if the place he lives on doesnt have a law-obeying society? being locked up is based on ur dis-obeytion of laws doesnt it? so how can u say not look from a legal perspective, but say that he can be locked up and throw the key away?...i love arguing like this. i should be a lawyer.

[IsUkAtDdR]

i have to agree with dancingmaniac3, but if it was in a society with laws and everything then i would have to agree with chardish

[dancingmaniac3]

thank you isukatddr...and i would agree with chardish, IF it was a society with laws. but it obviously wasnt, since i dont think that a guy would go hunting on an island when theres a chance that the shipwrecked guy can get away and report the general to law-enforcers. if there was a law-based society, the guy being hunted would've ran to the police a.s.a.p. since he didnt, there isnt any laws or law-enforcement ppl...so i say its hunting, since, once again, there are no law-enforcers, or laws in that case, that say it was murder. :) case closed (i hope)

[IsUkAtDdR]

yah but i would still "kind of" think its killing also because your a man and he's a man. people would usually think hunting is a killing of something else. if you say your gonna go hunting they would never guess your saying your gonna go hunt down a man. they would think deer or animals.

[dancingmaniac3]

right, but thats because in our society, its against the law to murder someone...so they automatically think that hes not gonna kill a man, since we all think that he should know that its against the law. and once again, since there were no laws, he can kill a plant and call it hunting if he wanted. so in a way, murder sorta doesnt exist on that island.

[BluE_MeaniE]

I think it's still murder without laws. It's not "homicide in the first degree" or anything like that, but isn't murder just murder, and not defined by the law?

[dancingmaniac3]

AND...ppl think hes gonna hunt animals cause no one says "im gonna hunt a man" in our society...they say "im gonna kill/murder a man" so yeah. just to add that on.

[dancingmaniac3]

no, because, murder is a law-based term which means that u broke the law that says not to kill someone...so like murder is killing someone when its against the law not to. otherwise, its just hunting, or surviving.

[MalReynolds]

Actually, the end never specifies who won the sword duel, you just jumped and said Rainsford won the fight.

I think that it is perfectly fair. He was given a fair chance, and could have set traps. And he did. If Zaroff did kill Rainsford, it would have been murder. And also, Rainsford fancied himself as quite the hunter, so it was more situational irony.

I personally think Zaroff won the duel. It would make sense, because a weary and troubled Rainsford probably couldn't weild a blade as well as the keen, (although sleepy) Zaroff. It would be much more satisfying if Rainsford had won the duel, but the direction that Connell took with the story was dark, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if he had intended Zaroff to be the victor.

It does say "And he had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided," but that can be construed as death, for death to the weary and ill is like sleep.


My 2 cents.

Mal

[dancingmaniac3]

who is zaroff and who is rainsford? and i never jumped to who won...the question was, was the act of this called hunting or murdering someone...and since no one died then, then its considered hunting. and just like u said mal, he was given time and everything. even if he intentioned it to be murder, he would've killed him on the spot. and even then its not murder because of what i said in the posts above.

[MalReynolds]

Zaroff was the general that owned the island, and Rainsford was the hunter that washed up on shore.

I was merely providing insight to the ending to help others determine... Since Rainsford is supposed to have killed Zaroff in the end, then it is murder, because it was on private property, and Rainsford was trespassing.

The entire island belonged to Zaroff, see, and Rainsford being on it was trespassing. He could be shot. It wouldn't be murder, either, it would be protection of ones property.


Mal

[dancingmaniac3]

well see that changes everything. anti never said that he owned the island. so now its still not murder, but it isnt hunting either...so yeah its protection ur property, which by all means gives u a right to do whatever you want to. so ya it isnt murder or anything like that. but the way anti posted it, it sounded like it was just an island that belonged to noone out in no-where, where there wasnt a society. but i guess i should read that book. sounds awesome.

[MalReynolds]

No, Zaroff clearly owns the island. But technically, it is still hunting, because home owners can still "hunt" criminals through their house. A good example of this fails to come to mind at the time, but it has happened before.

Mal

[tristia]

i personally think it would have to still be considered murder. If i remember the story right (and your asking me to go back to freshman english class), hes a general and such right? that would lead me to think that he is from a place that has laws and rules just because it has a government and military, so he is still commiting murder based on a moral level. He would know that it was murder because he is from a society that forbids the act of murder. I suppose it would also depend on what country he is from, but the manner of how zoloff speaks about his servant i guess is what you would call him (his large friend0 makes me think he comes from a highly civilized background. He calls him a savage, because he is def and dumb... just makes me think zoloff should know better than to be hunting men for sport... which would make it murder.

[HNJhack]

ok, well these are all good points. here's mine. i don't think anyone said this yet...

The general told the man(i beleive that was rainsford) that he would hunt him. He has stated that he will do it tha tmeans he has thought a bout it making it pre-meditated murder. end of story ^_^

oh yeah, all hunting is murder when you think about it. it's just the way it is.hunting is murder, but murder isn't always hunting. ^_^

[chardish]

At this point, I think the debate is pretty stupid.

It's murder. Who cares what fashion the general kills the shipwrecked man in? Who cares if he gets a head start? The point is, it's still willful, wanton killing of one man by another. Whether or not it's "also hunting" doesn't matter.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Well LOGICALLY, it's both. but for some reason, I think it's more murder than anything

Usually hunting is when an animal is killed. Of course it IS possible to hunt humans because animal and humans are alltogether living species. But think about it this way, during the process of hunting, the animals are killed at almost first site, to prevent it from escaping. The general gave the man 3 days, and then afterwards decided to kill him on the spot. Another thing, hunting is usually done for money. Either that or they want to make clothes out of the furr, or eat the meat. Obviously, the human has no furr, and the story never said anything about the general roasting the man atop a fire LOL.


Here's another thing though. Think of these two questions: What is murder? What is hunting? They're almost the same. Theyre both terms used to describe the killing of a living being. Difference is that you will have some kind of reward after hunting, wether it be meat *food* or money or clothes *furr* . But to justify what I said before, food money or even clothes did NOT come out of the idea of killing a human. so I to finish it off...IT WAS MURDER!

[Falcon]

I think it's still murder without laws. It's not "homicide in the first degree" or anything like that, but isn't murder just murder, and not defined by the law?

what youre talking about is natural laws... the laws that a [normal] person adheres to because he feels they are right, not because they are written as laws by a government. and in that case, i would agree with you.

as for the argument, i would have to say it depends on perspective. if you consider a man, in this case, to be an animal and not a man, then it is purely hunting. if not, then it is murder. i will agree with chardish that it is a perversion... that a person has gotten to a point where he has to hunt so much that he must hunt something smarter than simply an "animal", but something that is as smart as he is.


4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

"its 3 am and i wanna go to beeeed" -OAR

[dancingmaniac3]

ok this is getting way out of hand. i mean its a great story and all and makes u think hard, but theres just too many perspectives and we're never gonna get the answer. the only answer we get is the one we believe in. thats our answer. there is no RIGHT answer to this story, only the answer that we think it is. so basically, this can go on forever, ppl saying its murder, ppl saying its hunting, ppl saying its both, ppl saying its neither. i predict this thread will go on for a while with everyones opinion...

[HNJhack]

indeed it will. isn't that the point to these threads. they consist of very complicated sublects with no easy answer. in makes u as all think extemely hard to find an answer. eventually we will agree. because there is an answer to everything. ^_^

[MalReynolds]

But Rainsford is tresspassing, and if Zaroff feels threatened, then his is full in his right to kill Rainsford.


Mal

[VxDx]

It's both, end of discussion. Plus the story sucked.

[HNJhack]

yo!!! the story wasn't all that bad. and yes it is both. but that is my opinion based on the way i was raised in this society.
that is what will determine the answer. where when and how you where raised and what went on during that time. ^_^

[Anticrombie0909]

Wow, gone for one day and there's 30 responses waiting for me. Ok, I think that it would have been murder in the story, but if Rainsford agreed to it, it would be hunting. So, hypothetically, say there was a reward...one million dollars if he could survive for three days. If Rainsford took on the quest willingly, I think he would have given Zaroff rights to do with him as he would. But in this situation, killing another man in these circumstances, it should be considered murder.

And stop saying that the discussion is stupid. If you actually stopped to think about it, you'd see there actually are deep insights into this topic.

[makaveli121212]

your talking hypothetically here with the money...how can you say A) that it isnt hunting and B) that it isnt murder

[Anticrombie0909]

I'm saying in the story it was murder, but under a different set of circumstances it could be considered hunting.

[makaveli121212]

what?! what the hell are you talking about, how is it not hunting...his prey is out running in the wild, he hunts it down and tries to kill it...it doesnt matter if its a deer or a man

...hey isnt that the book where he finds the man hiding on the first day, and could have shot him, but didnt because it was too easy...im not saying it has any particular relevance, but...

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Above poster obviously didn't read my post.

When you go hunting and you see a deer, do you wait three days before you decide to shoot the bastard? nope, you'd shoot him probably no later than a couple seconds after you see it. the man was given three days. He could've escaped, but he didn't. In a way, he led himself to his demise. because he WAS given three days but then he was a bastard and got killed. he wasn't dying willingly, he was just an idiot.

[VxDx]

GAHHH you're so dumb. It's hunting, because he was being hunted. There's no debate. He was being stalked by someone who has the intent to kill. That is hunting. It's murder because one person is killing another. It doesn't matter if there was money, or he was given three days.

There's no deep insight in that story. There's no relevance at all. It's a terribly predictable story.

[IAMTHEEVILBEAN]

I hate that story

I read it this year

I think its mystery/psycho

[makaveli121212]

Above poster obviously didn't read my post.

When you go hunting and you see a deer, do you wait three days before you decide to shoot the bastard? nope, you'd shoot him probably no later than a couple seconds after you see it. the man was given three days. He could've escaped, but he didn't. In a way, he led himself to his demise. because he WAS given three days but then he was a bastard and got killed. he wasn't dying willingly, he was just an idiot.

are you saying its hunting or murder...becuase hunting is seaking out your objective...thats it, not even necissarily killing it either...i can hunt for my socks in my dresser...

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

I typed out that entire paragraph to justify my point of view. my point of view is that in this situation, it's more considered murder than hunting. but logically it's both.

[makaveli121212]

how can it be more murder than hunting, thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard...its like saying i love you more than i like you...i loathe you more than i hate you...logic says those things are stupid, kinda like this thread...its both, get over it

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

I'm not here to start an argument *which is what you seem to be trying to do*. But here's a question for you? What's the name of the board that this thread is in? Here's the answer for you too. IT's called CRITICAL thinking. For god's sake everyone knows that it's both, even the person who started the thread did. BUT he wants to see what we have to say to back up our answers. Meaning REASONING and PERSONAL OPINIONS. If you've got a problem with what I think then let's play hangman, try to guess what I've got to say to you:

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING F _ CK

[VxDx]

hahaha you're so zany. just because it's in critical thinking doesn't mean that there is some hidden truth that you must find. It's both, and that has been backed up numerous times.

Makaveli posted his reasoning and personal opinion. If it's so obvious that it is both, why bother posting anything at all?

and if you don't give a **** then why are you posting in response to what he said?

[makaveli121212]

the thing is, which i stated form the beginning, that this shouldnt even be in, whats the name of this forum...IT's called CRITICAL thinking...for god's sake everyone knows its both...well then what must be thought about critically...the point is there is no critical thinking in this thread, so there should be no thread about it...

...but i suppose you were thinking critically when you said its more murder than hunting

[tristia]

i personally think half the problem is that its being called hunting... its more game... or sport... which in essence is hunting, but its for the pure enjoyment of it, not for any other reason at all... thats also why its considerd murder, cuz hes doing it for the fun of it... not for any other reason for then the pure amusement and enjoyment of the chase...

that would also explain why he didnt kill him when he first saw himit would ruin the whole point of the game... now that i think about it, thats probably why the book isn't names "the most dangerous hunt" lol... this guy isn't huntign at all, hes gaming, lol.

i dunno, its both... as has been said many a time already

[MalReynolds]

Actually, it's called "The Most Dangerous Game" because "game" is slang for animals you hunt, and people are the most dangerous game in that sense.

They actually bring that up in the story.

Mal

[tristia]

well, i hadnt read it in a while... i know it is close to the same thign as hunting, but hunting to me generally means with reason, while i percieve game as a sport for amusement, i just thought id bring up the difference.

[BluE_MeaniE]

hunting to me generally means with reason, while i percieve game as a sport for amusement,

No, "game" is the animal, not the activity, I believe.

[heyhey11]

anyone who says both is wrong because hunting is not murder because hunting is not a legal term and murder is thus making it impossible to make an event hunting and murder

[VxDx]

you are an idiot.

[tristia]

hunting isn't legallly murder because it doesn't normally involve hunting humans, lol... i think if you were to go to court and say "i didnt murder the man, i was hunting him", they would laugh at you...

and about the "game" thing... my mistake then :)

[Anonymous]

hunting is cool. i hunt squirrels. i dont get bored. its murder. stupid guy.

[bballplaya]

I've actually read the story, and I think the way it ends is really cool. Yay hunted man.

Let's not look at this from a legal perspective, since the laws of the land are not always right.

I think it's more of a sick perversion than anything else. To derive pleasure from killing humans is disgusting. Period. Such a person should be locked up with the key thrown away. I concur

[trillobyite]

ya I read it too, only about 2 months ago for school actually. Pretty cool if you ask me.

[Problems]

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/danger.html FULL STORY. READ IT.